Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am really happy to read this outstanding manuscript. The concept is timely and relevant to this modern era. I am impressed with the manuscript title that authors made for it. I believe this manuscript is a good candidate for publication in this journal.  The following minor comments may improve the manuscript:

 

1)     The abstract is great. If authors add the sampling technique here will be great.

2)     It will be better if authors add a paragraph regarding the current technological advancement in Bangladesh as the paper indicates artificial intelligence and blockchain technology.

3)     Authors describe the lines “Organizations must manage knowledge carefully since it can take many forms, including tacit and explicit knowledge [43].Knowledge management is described as the process of knowledge creation, knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing (KS), and knowledge application [43]. Knowledge improves an activity's efficacy and quality. Academics and practitioners should both explain how knowledge of artificial intelligence might be guided in desired directions in the SMEs [44].” If more recent studies were cited here that will improve the literature.

4)     Authors may cite the following papers in the literature review

Mamoshina, P., Ojomoko, L., Yanovich, Y., Ostrovski, A., Botezatu, A., Prikhodko, P., ... & Zhavoronkov, A. (2018). Converging blockchain and next-generation artificial intelligence technologies to decentralize and accelerate biomedical research and healthcare. Oncotarget, 9(5), 5665.

Di Vaio, A., Hassan, R., & Alavoine, C. (2022). Data intelligence and analytics: A bibliometric analysis of human–Artificial intelligence in public sector decision-making effectiveness. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121201.

Deebak, B. D., & Fadi, A. T. (2021). Privacy-preserving in smart contracts using blockchain and artificial intelligence for cyber risk measurements. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 58, 102749.

5)     More recent paper from the journal can be cited in the literature review.

6)     A little description of the figure 1 can be put under the conceptual framework. It will help to understand the hypotheses of the study.

7)     Was non-response bias was evaluated? If not, authors may describe a bit in this regard.

8)     The results and interpretation is understandably done. I really like the way authors approached it.

9)     Authors should recheck the intext citations and references list for more credibility.

 

 

 

Good Luck

Author Response

We tried to address your comments. Find the attachment where we replied as per your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear authors,

I am extremely happy to review the paper titled “Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain Technology and Risk-Taking Behavior in the 4.0IR 2 Metaverse Era: Evidence from Bangladesh-based SMEs”. This research paper is written well. However, I feel it requires some more changes, hence I have asked the authors to work some more in order to improve its quality. Hope these comments are useful.

 

1.0  INTRODUCTION

 1)  Line no. 31-47; This portion of the introduction is not required. I suggest you can come directly to the SMEs in the intro, and your second para (line no 48 onwards).

2)     In the introduction section, the authors can add what the literature says, how the study addresses the gap, & the important findings.

3) Show the study contribution(s) clearly in the introduction section. This will be the key to the acceptance of your paper. 

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

This section is good.  

3.0 METHODS:

Section 3.1 Research Design

1)     Remove the entire 3.1 (line no from 382 to 389); These lines are not much useful considering the context of the study. 

Section 3.2 Sample and data

2)     The double-back translation is not explained clearly. Example English to local language, and then the local language to English. This is called “double-back translation”. Reference for double translation here:

“Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 1(3), 185-216.”

3)     Line 400 to 401 “Finally, we provide demographic information for survey participants.”

This sentence is not clear, hence change.

 

4)     Line 399 to 400 “We added two screening questions on the first page of the survey to

make sure that the participants are familiar with Blockchain technology”

Mention the exact screening questions.

 5)     Line 392 and 393 “Stratified random sample was employed for this cross-sectional study.” How you did do that?

Explain the stratified random sampling in detail.

 

   6)     Line 400 -401, “Finally, we provide demographic information for survey participants.”

Change this sentence. We provide means what?

 7)     Line 414 to 416, “The prior studies' suggested sample size ranged from 30 to 460 cases [144]. As a result, the study's sample size is significant for examining the research methodology and components.”

This reason for the sample size is inadequate. Explain these further.

  Section 3.4 Pilot testing

8)     The pilot study with 15 samples is inadequate. One can at least remove this section and instead add a line about the pilot study.

 Section 3.5 Data analysis

9)     The study has no strong reason for using PLS-SEM. Why not CB-SEM?

Give strong reasons for employing PLS-SEM.

 

 

Section 4.1 Respondents profile

10) Line no 447 – 448, “When it comes to technology and innovation, Bangladesh is now one of the most forward-thinking nations.”

Such a sweeping statement requires to be cited.

 

Section 4.2. Measurement, Validity, and Reliability

 

11) Line 480-482, “All of the items' factor loadings were determined to be very significant and above the standard value.”

You mentioned it as a standard value. What is the standard value?

12) Line no 486 – 487; “The Cronbach alpha for each construct in reflective models should be higher than the cut-off value of 0.7.”

The reflective is an unnecessary word, rephrase the sentence.

13)  Line 484-486; Additionally, it was discovered that the composite reliability and the AVE test values were greater than the typical values of (0.7) and (0.5), which is a reliable sign.

What happens if the convergent is greater than 0.5? explain in brief.

14) “Table 2: Measurement of Model Assessment”; change the table name to “Measurement Model Assessment”

15) In table 2, instead of K1, K2, K3…. Write as statements for all constructs.

16) In table 2, give table footnotes for the following; AVE, CR, NFI & SRMR, like ABT.

 

Section 4.3 Discriminant validity

In the discriminant validity, the readers may confuse due to the three methods of estimating discriminant validity. Why these 3 methods?

Section 4.3.2 Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Analysis

Line no 519 – 520; “Since the HTMT values are less than 0.85, the variables' discriminant validity has been demonstrated statistically defined.”

The discriminant validity is concerned with the model and not with the variables. Rewrite the same.

 

Section 4.6. Hypotheses Testing (Direct and Indirect Relationships)

 

Refer “Table 7: Result of Direct and Indirect Effect Hypotheses”

The mediation analysis results will be given in the following format; path coefficient, t-stat, confidence interval (upper and lower). You can refer:

 

“Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36, 717–731 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553”

 

5.0 conclusion

 Can improve the conclusion writing. It normally starts from the research gap, and your approach to answering the research gap.

 The mediation hypotheses (H5 & H6) are not significant. Nowhere do the authors explain why these hypotheses are statistically not supported. The results are put under the carpet.

 

6.1 Theoretical implications

Nowhere the author has mentioned the theoretical contribution of the paper. What contribution is given to the theory advancement? This is important for any research paper.

6.2 Managerial implications – rewrite the managerial implications

 How do your findings help the business managers?

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We tried to address your comments. Find the attachment where we replied as per your comments. We also checked our paper by a native English speaking person.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The theoretical contribution is not clear. Kindly elaborate.

Author Response

We tried to address your comments. Find the attachment where we replied as per your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1)     3.1 Samples and data

Page no 9 lines 334-336

“The splitting of a population into smaller subgroups known as strata is a key component of the sampling technique known as stratified random sampling. During stratified random sampling, also known as stratification, the strata are created based on the common traits or features of the members, such as income or level of education.”

This explains the stratified sampling, but it is appreciated how did you perform the stratified sampling in your study. The above is not useful  

 

2)     Page 10 lines 375

 

“If a consistent PLS method is used in PLS-SEM, the structural connection is closer to CB-SEM.”

The sentence is meaningless, change.

 

3)     Page 10 lines 376 to 380

“Additionally, it has been discovered that the PLS-SEM approach has higher values for average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR), suggesting superior construct reliability and validity. PLS-SEM is better at giving empirical connections between variables than CB-SEM is at generating model fit indices. While composite-based models produce outstanding results in PLS-SEM, factor-based models are better suited for CB-SEM models. This study chose PLS-SEM in this aspect.”

 

This argument is not correct for the reasons why the study used the PLS algorithm. The reasons are “small sample size”, “non-normal data” and “complex models”.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comments. It helped us to revise the paper properly. We are really indebted to you. Find the attached file for the responses to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf